[CANCELLED] FREE Screening of "The Red Pill" @ UWS Bankstown, 13:00 3/12/16

Scrooge McDuck on 06/11/2016 - 20:26
Last edited 29/11/2016 - 15:26 by 2 other users

I cannot comment on the content of this film as I have not seen it. However, my interest in it was piqued by the news reports of its Australian premiere being cancelled after a feminist backlash and change.org petition.

When a feminist filmmaker sets out to document the mysterious and polarising world of the Men’s Rights Movement, she begins to question her own beliefs. The Red Pill chronicles Cassie Jaye’s journey exploring an alternate perspective on gender equality, power and privilege.

Trailer: "The Red Pill" documentary extended sneak preview

http://theredpillmovie.com/

Although this is a university screening non-students are more than welcome to attend.

As a university event, we will NOT be charging admission for entry.

Q & A session after the event with possible men's rights activists in attendance.

Parking:
Parking on campus is available and parking tickets will cost $7 all day, Ticket machines are available in every parking lot. (make sure you display your parking ticket on the dashboard of your car)

Public transport:
Via train, Panania Station is the closest within walking distance.

Bus timetables for available transport to Bullecourt Ave:

East Hills & Milperra to Bankstown

Liverpool to Burwood

Location details:
The event will be held in building 20, room 1.07. 500 seated capacity lecture theatre. The closest carpark to the screening will be P3.

Wheelchair access to the Lecture Theatre is available.

Campus map

Mod 6/11: Discussion is fine but let's make our points without insulting each other.

Mod2 29/11: As per the Original Link, this event has been cancelled. Moved to the forums for the sake of discussion.

Automotive Movie Movie Ticket

Related Stores

meetup.com

Comments

- - - brentsbits on 06/11/2016 - 22:37
      
      +4
      
      @nosdan:
      
      You've not actually addressed any issues so far. Just called people names.
      
      And you are calling other people "low ability"?
      
      Hilarious
    - Moderatorneil on 06/11/2016 - 23:35
      
      Discussion is fine but let's make our points without insulting each other.
    - COR80 on 06/11/2016 - 23:35
      
      +4
      
      @brentsbits: Go and read back through your comments and take note of yourself doing exactly what you accuse others of. You're a joke.
    - chav on 06/11/2016 - 23:37
      
      @nosdan: hey steady, I'm just reading this! There's a fairly wide spread of people on here we don't all post all the time [thanks Neil you got there first]
    - COR80 on 06/11/2016 - 23:40
      
      +2
      
      Well, just let us know where you do your research, so we can avoid it; its never done you any favours on ozbargain.
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 01:26
      
      +3
      
      @COR80:
      
      Done who no favours? Me?
      
      you are still attacking the person, not the argument.
      
      Are you ever going to address any points (that are so easy to refute)? Or are you just going to continue going on and on with the schoolyard personal attacks?
      
      Go and read back through your comments and take note of yourself doing exactly what you accuse others of.
      
      You haven't given me much to work with, given that all you've been doing is name calling. Give me something else to respond to and we can have a reasoned discussion about it. I'm waiting.
- brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 01:29
  
  +5
  
  I really respect this woman for having the courage to speak up
  
  Perhaps. I think I would have respected her more if she'd had the courage to actually challenge her interviewees.
  
  I hope she does the topic justice
  
  She won't. It's a propaganda piece.
  
  I'm not saying the men's rights movements doesn't have some points, but they aren't going to be addressed sufficiently in a piece with the likes of Paul Elam in it, in an interview where his views are not challenged. If you are making a documentary about your journey from one point of view to another, there should be some challenge in it don't you think? To at least do lip service to disagreeing with the people who you later said convinced you?
  - rokufan on 07/11/2016 - 19:41
    
    Have you even seen it?
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 19:57
      
      -1
      
      Dude, I don't need to see something to form an opinion on it.
      
      Do you ever form an opinion on a movie without having seen it? Of course you do. It's how you figure out what to go and see or not when you go to the movies.
      
      How do you do that? You read reviewers that you trust. You seek out opinions on it.
      
      Just because it's a "documentary" doesn't mean that one can only comment if one has seen it.
      
      Why would you have this standard when you wouldn't apply it to any other movie?
    - rokufan on 07/11/2016 - 20:15
      
      +1
      
      @brentsbits: It was a simple question. Yes of course you can have an opinion, I never said otherwise. It's just that if you haven't seen something then your opinion is based on little information. Caution, most of the reviews out there are written by Feminists who are only intent on trashing anything critical of feminism - so some skepticism would be wise.
      
      You are having a busy day with 50+ lengthy comments and counting. That is some good SJW thought policing.
      
      Now relax, here is some comedy relief, watch the video.
      
      Feminists Love Islamists:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08
      
      Richard Dawkins shared this video on twitter, and was subsequently attacked by mobs of feminists - the stress led to him having a stroke.
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 20:34
      
      @rokufan:
      
      Caution, most of the reviews out there are written by Feminists who are only intent on trashing anything critical of feminism
      
      I would hope that although it's obvious I'm fairly set in my beliefs that at least I've showed the ability to think critically. I always evaluate the source when evaluating what they say. For regular movies, one of my most reliable reviewers is someone who thinks the absolute opposite of me, every time. If he hates it, I'll love it and vice versa. Always consider your source.
      
      so some skepticism would be wise
      
      The problem with this line of thinking is that skepticism in and of itself is not a virtue. Most skeptics out there today call themselves skeptics but all they are about is disbelieving a particular idea, not about evaluating evidence etc.
      
      Have a look at the group showing this movie, they call themselves a skeptics society (with no qualifier) and they specifically say that they are out there to combat the misinformation and gender bias blah blah blah. That's not a skeptic. That's someone cloaking their bias in intellectualism and faux-reasonableness. It's actually fairly dishonest.
      
      That is some good SJW thought policing
      
      Seriously? Thought policing? that's all you've gotten from this. I've tried to be objective and address points as they've been raised, I've considered them (although many I've seen and considered before so it didn't take long) and then responded to them. I'm not getting hysterical and demanding people believe what I believe. You don't have to agree with the reasoning but my comments and points have been reasoned comments.
      
      That's pretty disrespectful to be honest.
      
      Richard Dawkins shared this video on twitter
      
      That's cause Dawkins is an (profanity). He used to have some points about god and atheism but he is responsible for the Cult of Science that's reared it's ugly head, rather than just plain old science and the scientific method. There's a difference. As soon as he strayed into that territory, he became a religious zealot, just of a different brand.
      
      There's a great South Park episode about it, much more eloquent than I could ever be about it. Third season I think. Just google "Oh my science" if you want to find it.
      
      the stress led to him having a stroke
      
      I don't wish anyone harm but he's still an (profanity). Seriously though. That video is the worst kind of schoolyard BS. It's not even particularly clever. It's just made by someone who wants it to be OK with calling all muslims terrorists and all women bitches or whatever. I watched about a minute of it before losing my will to love at it's pedestrian "humour". Maybe that makes me humourless. I'm OK with that.
    - rokufan on 07/11/2016 - 21:09
      
      -1
      
      @brentsbits: I admit I was being cheeky, not nasty, don't take it that way. You have been polite and persistent, I'll give you that.
      
      You don't see any parallels with Islam/Feminism? I think the video is funny because there is more than a little truth to it.
      
      Yes I somewhat agree with criticisms of Dawkins. Great show South Park.
      
      Do you have a problem with science? Feminists seem to, they have strange ideas about male/female biology.
      
      Tell me what you think of using the feminist lens for science? It's now a thing in academia. Too wacky for you?
      
      Example: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research
      http://nypost.com/2016/03/08/feminism-and-icebergs-a-new-low…
    - John55555 on 27/11/2016 - 19:50
      
      @brentsbits: You can calm down, they've banned it. Can safely watch something less evil like a Hitler documentary now
- phobaphobic on 07/11/2016 - 13:36
  
  +5
  
  I agree with the sentiment, but it is because of the actions of certain feminist groups (certainly not all of them!) that a men's rights movement is necessary. Feminists in the true sense of the word would support things like men's shelters, increased parental rights, and generally increased acknowledgement of men's issues.
  - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 19:55
    
    And they do. If you are paying attention to the extremists, then you aren't paying attention at all.
    
    Is every Muslim a terrorist?
    - phobaphobic on 08/11/2016 - 13:19
      
      +2
      
      They don't though. Where were the feminists when the radical 'feminists' shut down and protested against these issues and shelters?
      
      Real feminists would join men's rights activists - because they both want the same thing.
hamwhisperer on 06/11/2016 - 23:33

+10

I have no interest in this movie, but to see the loving and caring lefty SJW types throwing insults and shade at anyone who would even consider this is really not surprising. To think I use to think like those people. It's a weirdo cult, nothing wrong with equality, fairness, kindness but when you question any of their methods, their goals, their intentions or anything in any capacity. Watch out, they act just as atrociously as the apparent neckbeard hater sexist mysoginist homophobic people they love to hate (or whatever labels they decide to give them this week)

Notice the simple synopsis for the film:

"When a feminist filmmaker sets out to document the mysterious and polarising world of the Men’s Rights Movement, she begins to question her own beliefs. The Red Pill chronicles Cassie Jaye’s journey exploring an alternate perspective on gender equality, power and privilege."

That could be quite an interesting film for someone studying those topics or with a passion for them - who knows what the filmmakers final judgement ends up being at the end? Who knows, but the SJW types in this thread have already passed judgement that it must be for 'the bad people' and derided the film and those who would watch it.
More power to you guys, go pat yourselves on the back and retweet some Wil Wheaton or Devin Farci or whoever is in this week?
- brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 01:24
  
  +1
  
  Insults? really? Your vision seems to be selective on that one.
  
  Watch out, they act just as atrociously
  
  Really? They threaten with doxxing, rape and death both to the person and their family?
  
  That could be quite an interesting film for someone studying those topics or with a passion for them
  
  If it wasn't a puff propaganda piece. Go have a look at the LA Times review of it. She challenged nothing and merely gave a platform for people like Paul Elam to espouse their ideas. Not much of a "conversion".
  
  derided the film
  
  Because it's a puff, propaganda piece.
  
  those who would watch it
  
  Not those who would watch it but those who get all crazy about defending it when THEY haven't seen it either. It's a pretty nice little accusation to throw around until it comes home to roost.
  - ozhunter on 07/11/2016 - 01:41
    
    +6
    
    Not those who would watch it but those who get all crazy about defending it when THEY haven't seen it either. It's a pretty nice little accusation to throw around until it comes home to roost.
    
    Some people like free speech and like to make up their own minds on it.
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 01:45
      
      +5
      
      Some people like free speech and like to make up their own minds on it
      
      Me speaking out against it isn't in any way hindering anyone's free speech. By the way, if the film WAS actually being censored, it's only Cassie Jaye's free speech being infringed on. No one else's.
      
      If they love free speech so much though, they should be encouraging me to voice my dissenting opinion. Just saying.
      
      Also, if they want to see it, good on them, they should go and do so. I wouldn't dream of stopping them.
    - DrThomas on 07/11/2016 - 13:36
      
      Unhnged
    - ozhunter on 07/11/2016 - 14:56
      
      +1
      
      @brentsbits:
      
      My comment was probably more aimed towards a thread on Whirlpool about it.
      
      By the way, if the film WAS actually being censored
      
      Well technically no, but there seems quite some effort by feminists who do not want the film that they haven't even seen to be screened in public. Though the petition worked, I think it ended up doing them more harm than good(streisand effect)
      
      Even if it is just Cassie Jaye's free speech being hindered, there are people who feel the same way as her. I don't care much for this and would likely not go if shown in Perth, but I wouldn't be opposed to letting others do so. Reminds me of the poem, "First they came"
      
      they should be encouraging me to voice my dissenting opinion
      
      Not so much need to encourage you, just not hinder. I don't think anything should be above criticism.
    - mrmark1970 on 07/11/2016 - 17:28
      
      +1
      
      @ozhunter
      
      OK, I found out about the petition. That was indeed a silly move on the part of the petitioners.
  - hamwhisperer on 07/11/2016 - 14:09
    
    +4
    
    "Really? They threaten with doxxing, rape and death both to the person and their family?"
    
    Same thing goes both ways, regularly. Definitely a common target is to attack 'the bad guys' place of employment, hit em where the wallet hurts.
    
    "Not those who would watch it but those who get all crazy about defending it when THEY haven't seen it either. It's a pretty nice little accusation to throw around until it comes home to roost."
    
    I'm not so much defending the film as I'm pointing out the typical hypocrisy time and time again from the SJW crowd.
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 15:42
      
      Definitely a common target is to attack 'the bad guys' place of employment, hit em where the wallet hurts.
      
      If it were a matter of them going after their jobs unprovoked, if be absolutely against it, however, what usually happens is screenshots of threats are taken and submitted to an employer with a "thought you'd like to know this is the guy you have working for you", any consequence is typically decided on by the employer.
      
      Obviously not every time and when it's unprovoked I'm just as against that and will speak out about it if I see it (or have it pinned out to me, which hasn't happened yet).
      
      Like I said usually how it goes is feminist says something that MRA dude disagrees with in a public forum. MRA dude responds by sending a private message with some form of threat. That gets screenshotted and submitted to whomever. Consequences follow.
      
      Not always I'm sure, but typically and even then, not all that often, compared with the literally hundreds of threats a week any prominent feminist will receive.
      
      I don't think it's out of order for there to be consequences for that kind of behaviour. If certainly like to know if one of my employees was doing that kind of thing while having me listed as their employer publicly.
      
      I'm pointing out the typical hypocrisy time and time again from the SJW crowd
      
      If this is the behaviour you are talking about there's very little hypocrisy in it because to suggest the two are the same is drawing a false equivalency. Typically, the MRA crowd threaten unprovoked (as in not in response to a personal message but to a public statement or newspaper article) whereas the behaviour you are describing is typically in response to a personal attack or threat.
      
      The left have their share of hypocrisy, I really don't think that this is one of those times (excepting when it's unprovoked)
    - hamwhisperer on 07/11/2016 - 16:58
      
      +3
      
      @brentsbits:
      
      Threads need to go to the police or moderators of sites, I can't condone tools sending threats.
      I also can't condone someone thinking in ANY situation it's right to contact the employer of someone for what they do in their own time, it's idiocy tattle tale rubbish and 9 times out of 10 the employer, regardless of the incident will just fire the person to avoid social media backlash swamping by an angry group of Facebook warriors.
      
      Case in point Sir Tim Hunt.
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 17:15
      
      +1
      
      @hamwhisperer:
      
      I also can't condone someone thinking in ANY situation it's right to contact the employer of someone for what they do in their own time
      
      I absolutely can for two reasons. Oh they are so friggin stupid to have their employer on their public profile and send some of the frankly disgusting threats that I've actually seen, they deserve what's coming to them.
      
      The thing is, whenever any guy gets caught doing this (or beating their girlfriend and no I'm not trying to make them equivalent), people come out defending them saying that"they are such a nice guy". News flash, anyone who does any of those things isn't a "nice guy". Nice guys don't do that kind of thing, it's just not in their makeup.
      
      The second reason is that although it is against the law to send threats via a carriage service, police never prosecute, even with substantial evidence, enough to charge. They have more serious crimes to attend to, apparently.
      
      I would agree, if the police would do something, that's the best way to do it but they won't, so I have no problem with a "just thought you might like to know" email. Nothing publicised, just all nice and private.
      
      These kinds of behaviours should have consequences and frankly for the few who actually do get fired, it's much better than being registered as a sex offender, which is what would happen if dinner if these rape threats went through the court system.
      
      As to the moderators of sites, so many feminists I know have been banned for 30 days for fairly random stuff, not aggressive, nothing like that but when they submit a complaint to Facebook about these threatening messages they get a response saying that the message does not breach community standards. That's literally what they are told.
      
      If Facebook or the police refuse to do anything, what are they supposed to do? Just sit back and take it?
    - hamwhisperer on 07/11/2016 - 17:30
      
      +2
      
      @brentsbits:
      
      "I absolutely can for two reasons. Oh they are so friggin stupid to have their employer on their public profile and send some of the frankly disgusting threats that I've actually seen, they deserve what's coming to them."
      
      I stopped there,…………. no need to continue this discussion further.
      Seek help, typical SJW "omg doxxing! those bastards!" type - but no hesitation doing the same thing.
      Are you taking the higher ground or not? Seems not, hypocrisy continues.
      
      Don't bother replying.
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 17:38
      
      -1
      
      @hamwhisperer:
      
      and you started off so reasonably.
      
      You didn't bother to read the entirety? How's that for not getting all the information.
      
      By the way, emailing someone's employer privately is not doxxing someone. Doxxing is finding someone's private information (address, phone number, private email etc) and posting it publicly with the intention for others to use it to harass the person. The most egregious examples of this were during GamerGate, when women were regularly doxxed and several of them had to actually move and go into hiding, they were genuinely afraid for their lives.
      
      For the record, I'm happy for it to happen the other way around as well. If a feminist does the heinous bullshit that an MRA does on a regular basis, take a screenshot and email their employer. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
      
      Seems not, hypocrisy continues
      
      It actually doesn't because you are labouring under a false impression of what doxxing is.
- DrThomas on 07/11/2016 - 13:41
  
  -1
  
  Do not hide your feelings from the Media Elite, they live in the fascinating "World of Make Believe" as brought about by both Milo and Breitbart during discussion of the real truths behind things. One illuminates the real world of "SJWS" and find that neither are a product of byzantine reality, rather an truthful findings of questioning True Intent? I am not a true believer in the true sense of the word but I can understand finding the reality when confronted with, they just want to make us all think about boat people who undergo the correct tortures.
  - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 15:43
    
    +1
    
    boat people who undergo the correct tortures
    
    Did you really just say that? Correct tortures?
    
    And you call me unhinged
Moderatorneil on 06/11/2016 - 23:34

Discussion is fine but let's make our points without insulting each other.
gilbarc on 06/11/2016 - 23:35

+10

Note to self: stay out of the comment section of anything even vaguely political on OzBargain. Yikes.
payton on 07/11/2016 - 00:52

+2

Quote from https://www.meetup.com/wsusceptics/about/

Due to the foreseeable interference of our host university, our group and I have decided to create an alternate means in which to organise group meetings and events. Usually handled by our university; we believe it’s in the best interest of this group to be able to operate unimpeded. Our recent issues with a hilarious attempt! To censor us on campus has led to the unfortunate disabling of our umbrella site. UWS have taken far too long with enabling our site for us to suspect anything else but an attempt to discourage us from operating. It’s unfortunate that censorship would be so readily practised on a university campus; I guess it’s just the show of the times in which we live.
- brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 01:18
  
  +3
  
  Interesting, so not actual sceptics then. Merely another name for another MRA group aimed at imbuing them with the reasoning associated with actual sceptics groups.
  
  I also find it interesting that if the interference was forseeable, why would they seek to organise it through a method that they knew was going to be disrupted? The only reason I can see is so they can point the finger and say "OMG OPPRESSION!!!!". Groups who genuinely want to get stuff done don't bother with that kind of crap.
  
  Sceptics groups have no agenda other than to question. This group's agenda isn't to question, it's to promote a specific gender agenda. Nothing wrong with that if their group wasn't trying to shroud it in something else.
payton on 07/11/2016 - 01:27

+1

Guardian article on how the filmmaker have faced a lot of hurdles even during the initial funding stage, and being attacked by other feminists.
- brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 01:32
  
  +4
  
  The Kickstarter page promises the film will document “a life-altering journey where she would never see the world the same way again”
  
  There's no way she would have gotten so much MRA funding if she hadn't already foreshadowed that it would be a positive film for them and that's where most of the Kickstarter funding came from.
- ozbjunkie on 07/11/2016 - 12:09
  
  Why would feminists attempt to scuttle the film making of a women?
  
  Seems counter productive and antithetical to feminist movement.
  - labyrinthinecities on 07/11/2016 - 13:05
    
    +1
    
    Many reasons…? Feminists are not an amorphous horde of singular ideology. There are a lot of tensions within the feminist movement between people/groups with different beliefs about the fundamental structure of the world, as well as the means and ends of social and political change.
    
    Just because a person is a feminist doesn't mean they will support all women unconditionally. For example, many people dislike/hate Margaret Thatcher. Or another example, if someone is a feminist whose work focuses on domestic violence shelters and a female politician tries to pass a law/proposal/etc that drastically cuts funding for domestic violence shelters… Well, basically you can insert your contemporary issue of choice in there.
    - ozbjunkie on 07/11/2016 - 15:40
      
      +1
      
      I basically agree with your sentiment that feminists will not automatically agree with the viewpoints of other women.
      
      However, to attempt to censor women, or claim their opinions are invalid, seems to act against female empowerment in general.
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 15:51
      
      @ozbjunkie:
      
      I can see what you are saying but don't necessarily agree.
      
      A movie like this has the potential to set a precedent in people's minds along the lines of "well, she's a feminist and she agrees, therefore the rest of you are being unreasonable".
      
      Referencing the LA Times review specifically, the film maker didn't challenge any of her interviewees or ask hard questions of them but appears to have conducted the interviews in a passive manner. For her to then be saying that she's undergone a conversion suggests her feminist beliefs weren't that tightly held, which makes the conversion less….I dunno, authentic?
      
      I can see why feminists would have a problem with that. I can absolutely see the argument along the lines of "they convinced Cassie Jaye, why are you being so unreasonable" being used, which will further distract from the issues that those feminists are trying to address.
      
      If expect the same response if the situation was reversed (although with a lot more name calling).
    - ozbjunkie on 07/11/2016 - 16:00
      
      +1
      
      @brentsbits:
      
      I certainly agree it would be a poor argument to suggest that convincing one feminist to soften her perspective should convince others.
      
      While I haven't seen the doco, I would like to.
      
      I certainly think enriching the discussion of gender issues on society is worthwhile, even if each contribution suffers from certain limitations.
      
      If the core perspective of each 'side' is that people have value and their issues should be addressed, then it's reasonable to suggest that docos developing that similar goal should be viewed.
DrThomas on 07/11/2016 - 02:07

-5

Sounds like thosse Feminazis are at it again!! Maybe Emperor Trump will sort 'em out lolzor
- DrThomas on 07/11/2016 - 02:08
  
  -2
  
  Comment Voting
  You are not allowed to vote on your own comment
  
  THE FEMINIST LEFTIST MEDIA AT IT AGAIN!! I SPEWED UP MY BIG MAC
Slippage on 07/11/2016 - 12:10

+8

Comments section did not disappoint! I'm amazed how quick people are to try and censor something that is against their values, even more so when they haven't seen the movie to judge for themselves.
- mrmark1970 on 07/11/2016 - 13:17
  
  +1
  
  How do you define "censorship"? I can see criticism, advocacy and self-expression in the above discussion but I don't see calls for censorship.
- brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 15:53
  
  Censorship is imposed by the government. This is a grip fighting against something they strongly disagree with. More than that though, something they see as being actually harmful.
  - Yuri Lowell on 07/11/2016 - 17:03
    
    +1
    
    The old SJW "it can only be censorship if imposed by the government". Call it what you want it doesn't change the fact of what is happening in that certain groups and individuals are taking the right everyone should have to see this movie. Just because it doesn't align with your ideology doesn't mean it should be pulled or banned. The more I read into the people who are blocking this movie from being seen the more it seems like they come from a cult.
    - mrmark1970 on 07/11/2016 - 17:14
      
      +1
      
      I agree with your premise. Censorship can be effected by a non government actor.
      
      But I don't see anyone here calling for the movie to be pulled or banned.
      
      You mention "certain groups and individuals". Do they have names? And more importantly, do they have enough power to prevent anyone who wants to see the film from seeing it?
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 17:22
      
      +1
      
      @mrmark1970:
      
      I agree with your premise. Censorship can be effected by a non government actor.
      
      True, however that entity must have both the authority and the legal power to do it. A cinema pulling the film is no such thing. They are making a personal or business choice. The petitioners in this case had no airport or legal power to enforce anything, merely the strength of their arguments, which in this case were strong enough.
      
      But I don't see anyone here calling for the movie to be pulled or banned.
      
      In all fairness it has been called to be pulled but no one that I'm aware of has called for it to be banned
      
      And more importantly, do they have enough power to prevent anyone who wants to see the film from seeing it?
      
      This is the key point that most are ignoring in favour of yelling about free speech
DrThomas on 07/11/2016 - 13:21

+1

First the leftists came for my TV, and I didn't realize that the MRA conspiracy ran as deep as it does. There is no truth in fiction!! This film isn't real, just the latest in a series of attempts to remove control from the people. The "Feminazis" and the alt-right have been long working together to ensure that everyone is kept as bay by their ledes. If you don't see the film immediately you will not know these un-truths being spread not only by the Liberal media but the umpteenth time both men went under the ocean and found the sunken city that neither of them had found before. Milo on Breitbart told us the truth early on that both John Howard and Lippery "The" Skipper knew the truth about Shuma-Gorath, a real entity that is in charge of the media. They tried to block both of us but you don't know where to find the truth.

When I first discovered the secret price of the Shelldorness both times we were silenced by the Liberal elite who are intent on keeping every "Or maybe, just maybe, they are males" I really hope that's irony. True, but playing the same game, isn't the way to change the world. FairPlay and love are more important than either trying to dominate the other unfairly. I appreciate the sentiment but in order for our to become a reality, some of the structures and ways of thinking that have led to the current state of inequality need to be broken down first. The fact that you are being downvoted for this comment speaks volumes. I know right? Entire planet is man's safe space? Keep drinking the Kool Aid. Not to mention females outperforming males in education, more females entering and graduating uni, special scholarships available for females only… So if a film doesn't tow the feminist line, it must only be "neckbeards" interested in it? No doubt you'd have the film banned and/or censored if you could; freedom of speech is OK so long as no one disagrees with your opinions, ay. They know not of what they are speaking. Men aren't a disadvantaged group in our society. If that were true, they probably wouldn't resort to threats of doxxing, rape and death on a regular basis. All you are interested in is ad hominem attacks, rather than addressing any issues raised. "The presence of the Dunning-Kruger effect, as it’s been come to be called, is that one should pause to worry about one’s own certainty, not the certainty of others."

As if they're leaving the safety of Mum's basement. Maybe this is one of the very few unis that actually embrace what uni is actually meant to be. A free exchange of opinions and thoughts, along with a healthy and mature debate. Nope, the student politics at UWS are basically the same as at any other uni. The only real difference is that everyone, including the hard-lefties, whinge about the car parking and want Parramatta's south campus and its lovely green areas to be replaced with a parking lot. Amazing that we're living in an age where you'd even say that, but you're 100% right. Australian university's are now the home of the totalitarian jack-boot left, where any independent thinking is verboten. I reckon the Socialist Alternative are going to be out in force (most of them won't even be students at the uni), and because it's during summer it'll be very easy for them to target the cars of people who turn up. It's nothing of the sort because all nosdan has done is call people names and all you've done is called it childish nonsense. I don't need a trigger warning for people who just call me names. That's par for the course when speaking with MRAs. That sort of selective outrage, typical of your type, is why you'll not be taken seriously here. Trigger warnings aren't there to cosset youngsters, they're there for people who have had genuinely traumatic experiences like abuse.

I really respect this woman for having the courage to speak up. I hope she does the topic justice. Go and read back through your comments and take note of yourself doing exactly what you accuse others of. You're a joke. You haven't given me much to work with, given that all you've been doing is name calling. Give me something else to respond to and we can have a reasoned discussion about it. I'm waiting. That could be quite an interesting film for someone studying those topics or with a passion for them. If it wasn't a puff propaganda piece. Due to the foreseeable interference of our host university, our group and I have decided to create an alternate means in which to organise group meetings and events. Just because a person is a feminist doesn't mean they will support all women unconditionally.
- bonkers22 on 07/11/2016 - 14:10
  
  +4
  
  Mate this is a bargain site, it seems you have a bit too much free time.
  - DrThomas on 07/11/2016 - 14:21
    
    +1
    
    The only "Bargain" here is the "Bargain" of wisdom that I have inserted into your brain via my timeless lyricism within my writings, of which the truth can only startled to be comprehended. Do not believe the sheeple, engage your own dreams!!
    - mrham on 07/11/2016 - 15:33
      
      I think Woolworths has a special on tin foil at the moment. It sounds like you might be interested.
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 15:56
      
      your writings?
      
      You are a plagiarist too…
    - DrThomas on 07/11/2016 - 16:01
      
      @brentsbits: Triggered
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 16:48
      
      +1
      
      @DrThomas:
      
      Yeah, I don't think you know what triggering actually means. You just use it as an insult cause you heard someone else day it and you thought it was a good way to sound smart and throw an insult.
      
      Word to the wise, when you use a term and obviously don't know what it means, it becomes neither an insult, nor smart.
      
      Hope that helps
    - DrThomas on 07/11/2016 - 17:11
      
      -1
      
      @brentsbits: lol, get to the choppaaaaaaaa
  - janeymac on 07/11/2016 - 15:36
    
    +1
    
    I agree. I find ozbargain a but ranty lately, and not really bargain related. Have to scroll through a lot of messages to read anything of substance, like reviews of goods or the vendor. I appreciate the humour, sometimes, but when there are forty comments of joky quips and one useful comment at the bottom of the page, it gets a bit tiring.
  - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 15:55
    
    Nah, he's just copied and pasted a lot of comments and mashed then all together.
    
    There's some stuff I wrote in there :-)
  - ozbjunkie on 07/11/2016 - 16:03
    
    Given how much time we all spend trying to save a dollar (literally $1), I suggest we all have lots of free time.
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 16:44
      
      You make an excellent point
Skinnerr on 07/11/2016 - 13:52

+1

Im on the fence here, but something I find funny - if this movie was about female equality and rights, there would be nothing but praise. Imo.
- brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 15:59
  
  If it were reversed and it was an MRA guy undressing the conversion, it would be a lot less civil. Los of name calling in public and threats in private.
  
  Yes, less civil. If you think this hasn't been particularly civil, a movie the reverse of this being released would make Donald Trump's entire campaign sound like reasonable, respectful and thoughtful discourse :-)
bonkers22 on 07/11/2016 - 14:16

+2

Lol this reminds me of that Muslim arts festival a little while ago. It's just a bargain site, no need to attack anyone for their opinions or beliefs. If you believe Jews or Muslims are plotting to taking over the world, or the "elite" are practising eugenics through feminism, I disagree but that's your right to believe in it.
- brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 16:01
  
  At some point you need to speak up though, when certain opinions are potentially harmful?
  
  Not saying censor them, just speak out against them
Dr Prepper on 07/11/2016 - 15:19

+1

Lol.I love the comments on ozbargain.
- brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 16:01
  
  +1
  
  You should see the megathreads on /r/Melbourne about this topic :-)
  - ozbjunkie on 07/11/2016 - 16:04
    
    +1
    
    Link? If it addresses this film specifically…
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 16:44
      
      Just go to the subreddit and search for red pill
infinite on 07/11/2016 - 16:10

+3

This thread is like an all-you-eat buffet of salty SJW tears. I've never lapped up so many delicious salty SJW tears in all my time here on this site.
- brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 16:46
  
  +1
  
  Ah, another MRA. It's good you guys make yourself so easy to spot
Jumpingmanjim on 07/11/2016 - 16:33

+1

Grabs popcorn.
Well this thread is bound to be good.
- brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 16:45
  
  You kind of missed the party, the troops seem to have left
rokufan on 07/11/2016 - 16:48

+2

I like Ben Shapiro's history of Feminism:

1st wave: women get the vote
2nd wave: women get right to work
3rd wave: women can behave like pigs (because men do) [equality]
now: woman can behave like pigs - but men can't [supremacy]
- brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 16:50
  
  They act like pigs how exactly?
  
  Not being allowed to act like pigs certainly doesn't stop most of them.
  - rokufan on 07/11/2016 - 16:54
    
    +4
    
    Think about.
    
    If men are sexist in public they are publicly shamed. Examples: Chris Gayle, Eddie Mcguire incidents.
    
    Women being openly sexist to men face no consequences and will probably be cheered on.
    
    It's the double standard.
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 17:03
      
      Women being openly sexist to men face no consequences and will probably be cheered on.
      
      Examples equivalent Eddie Maguire's gaffes please?
      
      They should be pilloried for saying the crap they did because for better or worse, these are the opinion makers in our society and people will emulate them.
      
      In addition, he made those comments during the round dedicated to raising money for White Ribbon. A "celebrity" shouldn't be saying that stuff in public at all because of their influence. Hell, they shouldn't be making them in private either if they are decent human beings
    - rokufan on 07/11/2016 - 17:10
      
      +2
      
      @brentsbits: The most recent example I can think of was on the weekend: Lena Dunham called for the extinction of all straight white men. She is not a fringe feminist, she is mainstream, she is part of Hillary Clinton's campaign!
    - payton on 07/11/2016 - 17:27
      
      +2
      
      @rokufan:
      Here's another, a "diversity officer" who proudly wrote 'kill all white men'
      And placed a sign saying "no white hetero men" on events she hosted.
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 17:47
      
      @rokufan:
      
      First, Lena Dunham is most definitely fringe. She isn't mainstream just because she has a platform and is a celebrity. Her beliefs are fringe.
      
      Even having said that, she didn't "call for the extinction of white men" she asked her dad how he felt about the extinction of white men. There's a fairly big difference between the two and confusing them is emotionally loading it so people get all excited and don't actually look what happened.
      
      Even having said that, she's a friggin loony.
      
      she is part of Hillary Clinton's campaign
      
      no, she's not. There's a massive difference between campaigning for someone and being a part of their campaign. One is getting out there saying "you should vote for this person for these reasons" and the other is that person actually being an advisor and having some degree of power and control over the campaign, even if it's minor.
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 17:51
      
      +2
      
      @payton:
      
      This is the funniest thing I find.
      
      Whenever men say sexist shit, when they get called out their response is typically "geez, you are so thin skinned, learn to take a joke"
      
      Yet, when evaluating what feminists say, there's no possibility in their mind that it's 100% serious and that we have a bunch of genocidal maniacs on our hands. Satire and humour are not a possibility at all. Perhaps men should heed their own advice?
      
      In that particular case though, she does indeed appear to be a loony.
      
      So, Eddie Maguire suggesting he'd pay to see a specific woman, that he knows personally and is not friends with, drowned should be taken as a joke and people shouldn't be so serious.
      
      Someone like this is seen to be 100% serious and should go to court. For the record, given her track record, I'm fine with her going to court, what's good for the goose is good for the gander but can you not see the incredible double standard there?
    - rokufan on 07/11/2016 - 18:05
      
      +4
      
      @brentsbits: Oh come on! She has been in offical TV and internet ads for Hillary. Also she had a sit down interview where they discussed and agreed on all things feminist. She also has stood on stage next to Hillary multiple times at rallies including the Democrat National Conference when Hillary was coronated.
      
      Lena Dunham is mainstream feminism. Her Australian equivalent is Clementine Ford, she is a pig, take a look at her twitter timeline https://twitter.com/clementine_ford?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7…
      
      As Christina Hoff Sommers says, modern feminism is just female chauvinism.
      
      I'm all for equality, but reject this modern man hating cult.
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 18:14
      
      @rokufan:
      
      Lena Dunham is mainstream feminism
      
      She is absolutely not. Don't confuse being visible with being mainstream.
      
      Her Australian equivalent is Clementine Ford
      
      This is also 100% not true. I actually know Clem personally. Her twitter timeline. Oh god. This again. Women should learn to take a joke but feminists are incapable of satire and not saying things seriously.
      
      Is that seriously the argument you are going to go with?
      
      How much of Clem's stuff have you actually read? Seriously. She is in no way a misandrist. There's a massive difference between hating men and not caring if you offend them. Huge difference.
      
      modern feminism is just female chauvinism
      
      Not in my experience. I'm a dude and I don't actually feel belittled, shamed or threatened by it at all.
      
      I'm all for equality
      
      So you acknowledge that given there is a systemic imbalance between men and women that men will have to give up some of the things that they might feel entitled to? In a truly equal society, this is what has to happen. Not in an affirmative action way but if the truly best person for the job is going to get the job with no other considerations in play, women are going to start getting proportionally more jobs and more importantly proportionally more of the jobs with power. Take the example of 3% of women being Chair of the Australin top 200 comapny boards. If we get to the point where truly the most qualified person gets the job, that percentage is going to raise itself up over time. Maybe not to 50/50, maybe to 30/70 or 70/30 but in the top 200 companies, that means that in some cases a man (who might have thought he was a shoe in because that was his expectation because men typically get those roles) might not get it and a woman gets it instead. That's what I mean about some men are going to lose out. Not all men. Not even most men but some men. Might be you, might be me, might not even be anyone we know but it will be someone.
      
      You say you are OK with equality, you are OK with that then?
      
      modern man hating cult
      
      I'm not down with any man hating cults either, yet somehow I'm still a feminist. Do you think I hate men?
    - rokufan on 07/11/2016 - 18:14
      
      +4
      
      @brentsbits: You sort of made our point. Eddie Mcguire made in my opinion an off colour joke and he was crucified. Feminist say outrageous, hateful and insulting things - and there is silence. I use to dismiss this stuff as a joke, but you read and listen to enough feminists and it is all just hate.
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 18:19
      
      @rokufan:
      
      there is absolutely not silence when they say anything of the sort.
      
      You mentioned Clem Ford, do you have any idea of the shit she gets on a weekly basis, even when she doesn't write anything?
      
      Eddie Mcguire made in my opinion an off colour joke
      
      This is part of the problem. You see what Eddie said as a joke but what Clem said on her twitter as 100% serious, couldn't possibly be a joke.
      
      The worst bit about it is that Eddie made it during a round raising money for White Ribbon, an organisation aimed at reducing domestic violence, the majority of which is against women. He joked about paying money to see her drowned.
      
      So, just so I'm clear. Are you OK with him saying this kind of thing in public? Do you think he should get away with it because it's just boys being boys?
      
      If so, why are you not willing to extend the same courtesy to people like Clem Ford? It may not be a good joke or piece of satire but it's obvious that's what it was. Any individual 140 characters is surprisingly easy to take out of context if you want to.
      
      but you read and listen to enough feminists and it is all just hate
      
      So, where's the line for Eddie and the others who do all kinds of rank stuff on air. Eddie just said something, but what about the guys sexually harassing female journalists on air? Where's the line for them?
    - rokufan on 07/11/2016 - 20:34
      
      +4
      
      @brentsbits: Ford is a typical crybully: she attacks and when receives return fire she cries victim and uses those comments/tweets as evidence of some systemic misogyny. That's standard feminist/SJW operating procedure.
      
      She attacks not just men, but conservative women, example Miranda Devine and Rita Panahi, calling them the "c" world with rape threats. It's not as you say a case of out of context and misunderstanding. It is just an endless stream of vile.
      
      Whereas with Eddie, as a principle I don't like the idea of hanging people for the odd mistake, I don't think it was a big deal, we'll disagree on that.
    - brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 20:47
      
      @rokufan:
      
      she attacks and when receives return fire she cries victim
      
      See, that's the thing. She doesn't really attack anyone in particular most of the time. She identifies systemic issues and the other side conflate that to her meaning #allmen. Or whatever.
      
      Do you think she "cries victim" every time it happens? I can guarantee you she doesn't. She gets hundreds of threats and unsolicted dick pics every week. Now that she's had a baby, the baby and her partner are threatened as well.
      
      Even IF she did attack people rather than the status quo (and everything that entails), do you think that she deserves rape and death threats to her, her partner and her new born baby? Seriously? Why should she not be "crying victim" when that kind of thing happens? If you do think it's acceptable, can you please advise me at what specific point criminally threatening someone becomes OK? Any of the ones she posts online are the more mild ones. I've seen some of the others.
      
      Return fire is not rape and death threats in private messages. It's public debate, hell, it's even attacking her in the public sphere. What isn't return fire is being a f***ing coward and doing it all in private messages so no one will see what that person really thinks about women who threaten him. And by threaten I don't mean physically, I mean intellectually and ideologically.
      
      calling them the "c" world with rape threats
      
      Oh really? I'd like to see where that has happened because in all my time of arguing with people about how unacceptable she is the worst they can come up with is a satirical (if in bad taste) "kill all men" tweet. Please link me to those articles. Rape threats are never OK.
      
      It is just an endless stream of vile
      
      I think you mean bile, and that's not what it is.
      
      Getting told that she deserves "to be gang raped by a pack of AIDS infested n*****s". That's bile. It's also vile. That's pretty much her inbox on a daily basis.
      
      I'm pretty sure that one was in response to her posting a photo with "F*** Sunrise" written across her chest (with nothing showing I might add, yet everyone called it a nude) in response to the victim blaming and shaming they did when talking about revenge porn. If anything she attacked the scumbags that would post intimate photos of their exes in revenge. Those guys deserve some shaming. That's the kind of thing which makes people send her messages like the above.
      
      Tell me, is that message above acceptable as "return fire"?
      
      Whereas with Eddie, as a principle I don't like the idea of hanging people for the odd mistake
      
      That's the problem. It's time and time again and we should be holding our public figures to a higher standard than we hold ourselves. Just because they are celebrities they shouldn't be allowed to get away with things. This wasn't when he was sitting in a change room and on his own with a mate, it was out in public and picked up by a camera.
      
      If behaviour like that doesn't change and become unacceptable every time it happens, celebrity or not, then we won't ever reach equality, for anyone. Men won't get taken seriously when reporting assault because someone, somewhere will think it's OK to lambast him for it and women will continue to be blamed for getting raped.
    - rokufan on 07/11/2016 - 22:05
      
      +5
      
      @brentsbits: I've seen a screenshot of her worst tweets, can't find it at the moment. But I'm sure you'll accept the Guardian as a source: "Daily Life columnist Clementine Ford called veteran columnist Miranda Devine “a f**king (profanity)” on Twitter." https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/201…
      
      Shall we hold Ford to the same standard you want to hold Mcguire - and fire them both?
      
      This is the thing with SJWs, there is no proportion. You want maximum punishment even for microaggressions. Would you want to be on the receiving end of overly harsh punishment?
  - Dr Prepper on 09/11/2016 - 15:28
    
    Hmmmm bacon
teekoo on 07/11/2016 - 17:14

Why would they screen it at a uni there are many SJW, it seems it's to promote controversy.
- brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 17:41
  
  +2
  
  This is kind of what unis are for. Dissenting opinions and the like.
revolutio on 07/11/2016 - 17:35

+2

Ugh, Bankstown.
LustStarrr on 07/11/2016 - 17:36

-1

Some things are free for a reason, because they're rubbish. This is one of those things.
- Scrooge McDuck on 03/12/2016 - 00:05
  
  Why?
  
  How do you know?
  
  Have you seen the film?
zine21 on 07/11/2016 - 20:15

Don't know about the MRAs views but "The red pill" groups on reddit is nothing more then a bunch of creeps giving each other tips on how to get laid as fast and as much as possible without ever getting emotionally involved because as far they see it women are manipulative, awful creatures who are after their money and thus are not worth more then a quick lay.

Ive also looked at the "married red pill" groups and they're less aggressive however they too see women as just tools to make their lives easy in some way. Cooking cleaning, taking care of the chores and the kids, basically a maid to their house and a ***** to their bedroom etc. They have this list of expectations. They too give advice on how to manipulate women but this time with a tool they call "dread". So basically they advise men to treat their relationships as disposable, in order to scare their partners and get what they want.

Nothings wrong with men seeking their rights- I'm all for equality and I agree some laws do disadvantage men in the western world. Nothings wrong with voicing this as long as its not done under some hidden agenda of hate but if its anything like the reddit groups.. then theres not much hope for it at all. Cause its just bunch of butt-hurt guys who have decided to declare war and make things even by hurting/punishing as many women as possible to take out their anger.
- Scrooge McDuck on 03/12/2016 - 00:04
  
  From the trailer I watched, I don't think this film has much to do with that subreddit.
  
  They just both use the same name from the concept from The Matrix.
  - zine21 on 05/12/2016 - 12:11
    
    its not the film that's linked to these subreddits (although even the preview video mentions them)- its the individuals within the red pill/males rights movements that may also be part of these subs. Baseline is the same - Obviously no one ever openly discusses hate when their faces are exposed.. but put them on the internet and you have different tones coming though.
    
    I mean even in this intro video they talk about abortion. Yes it sucks that man don't get the final say in abortion - but what exactly do they want/expect, would they like women to be forced to carry a child for 9 month and go through child birth just because they would like a baby ?.
cannedhams on 07/11/2016 - 22:35

-2

When I did family law and I had a male client that had started spouting MRA stuff off the internet I just used to cringe inside. Just the non stop bitterness, paranoia and persecution complexes. They just couldn't be persuaded that they were only hurting their own case.

My favourite was when some guy would insist on 50:50 care of the kids even though he never spent much time with them previously. I would ask them for the kids dates of birth and a lot of times they weren't sure.

There are some legitimate arguments to be made but MRAs aren't the ones to make them. Besides there are plenty of feminists who are reasonable and concede that, yes, the education system is failing young boys, that men of colour suffer police brutality etc to a far greater extent than women.
- simulacrum on 14/11/2016 - 14:35
  
  +2
  
  To be fair I think there are a lot of reasonable people that identify as MRAs. Tarring all MRAs with the brush of the creeps you run into on reddit is sort of like tarring all feminists with the radical feminist brush.
  
  It's sort of like saying "I took a class in gender studies, taught by a prominent feminist academic. We were taught that prominent feminist Andrea Dworkin believes all heterosexual sex is rape. We studied Solanas, who published a murderous manifesto and then went out and tried to murder a guy. We read a few other texts that claim transgender women are an oppressive by their very existence etc etc…
  
  So in conclusion that there are some legitimate arguments to be made about women's rights and gender equality, but feminists aren't the ones to make them".
  
  Many people draw that conclusion based on their encounters with feminism in academia. In reality its a bad sample. Most people that identify with the label probably don't subscribe to its loudest, most radical, or even most prominent voices - they just want equality and basic respect.